Hans

I read it a while ago, and I agree with Funny Face--she was not cut out to be a performer of any kind. It wasn't the fault of the ballet world or the school.

It's not about whether I like Balanchine. You could just as easily say that WSB has an American style, even though it isn't as distinctive. My point is that the training methods here are as varied as the nationalities, and we do not have a "national" school the way Russia, France, and Denmark do. Mary Day's method is less influential than Balanchine's in some ways, but it has been producing excellent dancers for years and years (including the present director of ABT) in a classical style that is different from any other. Balanchine created a style that he thought represented the US, and other people have created others, and it doesn't make any of them any more or less representative of the country or its dancing. (And I would disagree with calling the Balanchine style "clean"--it looks unbearably fussy and Baroque to me--but that's another thread.)

What American style of ballet? I wasn't aware that there was one. Also, some people might be shocked to find out that ballet is a European art form, and that if you want to dance classical ballet, you've got to fit the European classics in there somewhere. (The real ones, not the easy-listening Martinized version.)

I have a question about the "American dancers are all trained for competitions" statement. Why do company directors say that and then go out and hire dancers who seem to do nothing but flashy tricks? For example: most of the current principals at ABT. There are plenty of tasteful, refined dancers in the US, but they don't seem to be hired unless there is something extreme about them (extension, feet, pirouettes...). And even then, they often languish in the corps. So that doesn't seem like the real reason to me.

The Erik Bruhn and Rudolf Nureyev Bell Telephone Hour DVD is excellent. Larissas Lezhnina as Aurora is on DVD now, as well as "Essential Ballet." Also, Nureyev's production of Swan Lake with the Vienna State Opera Ballet (how much you want this will depend on how much you like Fonteyn and Nureyev--the production's awful, but Fonteyn does a great job, especially in Act III).

Oh, elegance can be learned, but it usually takes more than a year.

Some other American-trained dancers hired by ABT include Danny Tidwell, Karen Uphoff, and certainly not least, Michele Wiles, although one could quibble with that if you consider that they're all from UBA. Maria Bystrova is Russian, but most of her training was at UBA as well.

You must have known I'd take issue with that . I can only assume that you meant that they danced it the way Petipa is usually danced today.

She wrote an autobiography, and it's really fun to read, and I cannot for the life of me remember the title. Anyone?

About as much use as a dance degree

Thanks, Alexandra--I edited the post.

There are at least two Kirov-Mariinsky Swan Lakes out there (and probably more) one starring Yulia Makhalina and another with Galina Mezentseva. Besides the Fonteyn and Nureyev tape with the Vienna State Opera Ballet, there is another tape of Fonteyn (not with Nureyev, but with more traditional choreography).

Do you mean Leslie Caron? I think she'd be too old by now. She was in "The Glass Slipper," which is an interesting version of the Cinderella story. There's a fun dance sequence in there involving fouettés on top of an enormous wedding cake and piqué turns around all the layers .

Art076, I thought the point of ABT was to perform classical works as well as new ones, as opposed to NYCB, which existed because of its choreographer. Part of the trouble is that the new works are not very good. [incorrect content deleted--for correct info, see Alexandra's post below.]

Drink heavily (preferably champagne) to forget the awful piece/dancing you just saw.

You're right, Leigh, about ABT not having a school, but in that case, it doesn't matter whether the dancers are all from the US or not--you'd still have a stylistic mix.

Haha, Leigh, now I'm confused too! Let's just say that I understand that you didn't intend criticism and leave it at that--this thread seems to have turned into something else anyway (for which I accept much of the blame). Alexandra, unless I'm missing something, I haven't found the word "Russian" or "St. Petersburg" in the Kirov-Mariinsky's name yet and it did hire Rasta Thomas for a while. So again, what matters is the schooling, not the nationality. (It would be kind of fun, though, to have character dancers from every country performing authentic dances in the classics.)

The problem with the Danes is the schooling, which is the same problem Alexandra identified above with ABT.

I understand, Leigh, but other people often do mean it as a criticism--should have made that clearer. I'm still surprised, though, that this should even be considered. Does it mean San Francisco Ballet should only hire dancers from San Francisco? Or that NYCB dancers should ideally be from one of the five boroughs? Really--why is this even any sort of issue? ABT's title clearly refers to where the company is based and the region it expects to perform in, not the nationality of the dancers it should hire. :rolleyes:

I agree with Ari regarding admiration. But to take Alexandra's point re: liking and "getting it," (Alexandra, I understand that you don't hold that position , but for the sake of argument...) it seems to consist of those who admire a choreographer's works dismissing every criticism with "well, you just don't understand it, then." Not a logical argument, but one that it's difficult to argue with for precisely that reason--you can't prove that you do understand it if you're constantly being met with a wall of "no you don't, not if you don't like it," which is not easy to refute. It reminds me of a cult

I guess this just brings up another question for me: in the "what is the difference between art and entertainment?" discussions we've had, everyone uses pop culture as examples of mere entertainment. I recognize that low art/pop culture has a different purpose, but when we speak of it as being "mindless" and "just entertainment," aren't we doing exactly what high culture "snobs" are accused of in not really considering it art? Or is low art not really art? Maybe we could come up with a broader definition of art that includes "low art." Because I see a difference between the mindless junk that is broadcast often right next to very interesting pop culture that I think meets previously-discussed prerequisites for being considered art. I hope I'm being clear; it just seems like there's a disconnect somewhere when we speak about high and low art both being art but having different purposes and then use examples of low art in order to define what "art" is not. Maybe I'm splitting hairs?

But the US is multinational...especially New York. I don't understand the criticism.

I think it's possible to enjoy high culture and low/pop culture. For one thing, pop culture isn't always mindless, even though it may seem that way. Some of it is interesting, carefully crafted social commentary.

What about those who "get it" but still don't like it?

This list of male roles includes some very distinguished ones, but it simply pales in comparison with the number of good roles for women. I understand the point about not having many good men, but what about in the sixties when NYCB was a well-established company and there were plenty of men to go around?